St. Paul daily globe., 1887-01-22
VALUE OF A CIGAR BRAND.

Newspapers EnjOined From Adver.
ITsing.- .-DissOlutiom Asked-.Court
Notes.
For some time past careful readers of the
Tribune and journal might have seen off in
one corner cigar advertisement Of j. {.
Joyslin & Co., stating that the firm was the
authorized agent of G. FloreZ, formerly B.
Garcia & Co., of New York and Chicago
This advertisement has, it appears, stirred
up hornets nest about the ears of JOysln
& Co., and an injunction has been issued
restraining the two papers from longer pub
fishing it under penalty OF lncurrng the
displeasure of the court. 1t appears from
the complaint that B. Garcia 6, Co. are the
owners of certain brand Of cigars. This
brand being Flor de B. Garcia u Co."
The complaint goes on to say THAT u.
FloreZ was not formerly B. Garcia IL Co..
and never had the right to adopt that name;
that the effect and intention OF the adver-
tisement in the two papers is to represent
to the public that G. Florez is either the
successor to or does continue the business
of manufacturing cigars formerly done by
him under the name of 3. Garcia IL Co.,
all of which is false and untrue. and to de-
ceive the public into believing that there is
at present no such firm as B. Garcia & Co."
1t is alleged that the defendants were asked
to discontinue the publication Of the adver-
tiSement. but refused to do so. The matter
was taken before Judge Rea, who at once
issued temporary injunction.
DISSOLUTION ASKED:
Gardner S. Butler has sued James Rob-
erts, j. NJ. Butler. r. II. Wicks and John
Peattie, his associates in business, for a
dissolution of partnership and the appoint
ment of a receiver. In his complaint he
says that they went into partnership in
1885, the defendants furnishing the money
and the plaintiff the experience. The
value of the stock Of goods on hand is
placed at SO, 900, and there is an accumu-
lated surplus i'll the business over and above
the interests of the defendants of $40, 900,
which the plaintiff claims belongs wholly
to him under the agreement. He alleges
that the defendants refuse to permit him to
longer carry on the business and refuse to
recognize his rights and threaten to eject
him from the store and deprive him of all
his rights. The business has been con-
Quoted under the name of the U. t. K.
clothing house, and both the name and the
stand are of considerable value. Mr.. But
Ter says that by reason of the threats and
assertions of the defendants it is impossi-
BILE to carry on the business. He wants a
receiver appointed and an injunction issued
restraining the defendants from interfer-
ing,
COURT NOTES. ....+
Before Judge Young yester day was tried
the case of Griffin s. Skelley, of California,
against j. J. Sleayin & Co., to recover 5000. al
legged to be due for one car of oranges. The
defendants admitted ordering the oranges,
but claimed that when they arrived here they
were decayed and unfit for use.
AT the special term to-day will be heard an
application of Howard Weber, now in the
county jail, for release, on the ground that he
was arrested on a warrant issued by Il person
who had no right to issue such warrant.
The case of Geo. Hopkins against r. w.
Barto ct al. was decided yesterday. when the
jury returned verdict of Sl,S00 for the
plaintiff. He sued for $4,000.
Lesser Franklin has issued an attachment
against George NJ. Harbitz to recover $17S.47
alleged to be due.